MOVING BEYOND SUBSISTENCE: SYSTEMIC INTEGRITY IN COMMERCIALISING HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURE, WITH THE EZEMVELO FARMERS ORGANISATION, KWAZULU-NATAL A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Agriculture School of Agricultural Sciences and Agribusiness University of KwaZulu-Natal By Karen Caister Supervisory Team: Prof. J M Green and Prof. A T Modi Pietermaritzburg South Africa 2012 ABSTRACT The transformation of South Africa’s rural communal spaces into an economically viable, socially stable and harmonious sector is currently on the political agenda, the efforts of the public sector to achieve this however have fallen far short of the intended goal leaving subsistence and emerging farmers with little or no support. A current decline in agricultural activity in South Africa’s rural areas threatens to weaken even further the strength of rural economies. Calls for the return of ‘peasant’ agriculture to the political and academic agendas and a clarion call for South African farmers to re- write their history lie within the problem of sustaining humanity with the economic, social, environmental and temporal dimensions as a driver for development. This thesis interprets the activities and behaviours that defined the innovative response of small-scale commercial farmers in KwaZulu-Natal who role model ‘farming’ as a ‘way of life’ in communal land spaces. The focus of the research was to interpret a useful meaning in the re-negotiation of power relationships between producers and their market. It conceptualised the process of individuals who had determined, and continue to define, their future. The events observed over the three years of field work, offered the possibility of generating an emergent solution to re-inventing farming as a way of life as season by season, decisions were made at the individual homestead level, collectively at community level and between internal and external decision-makers for market oriented agriculture as an additional farming strategy. A constructivist epistemology, relying on a pragmatic approach to using grounded theory methods within a participatory process, constituted the study design. The research focussed only on emic issues as the ‘culture’ or social and material priorities of the agronomic system in transition. For this reason, sensitising concepts were drawn from within the context to limit the scope and analysis of the study. Following the field work and write up, the literature of agrarian change was used to locate the study and consider the practical contribution of the study. This research identified that ‘successful’ commercial homestead agriculture was the result of changes in mind-set that allowed for new norms and behaviours for farming i practice and for relationships. These shifts provided leverage points for overcoming resistance between producers and markets in accommodating a sustainable market- oriented agronomy. Influencing the change was the impact of informed decision- making, which brought the stakeholders together through the sharing of values and beliefs. Success was interpreted as using the market-orientated production of amadumbe to tap into the factors that sustained and created social cohesion, as well as those that stimulated agricultural activity. This emphasis encouraged the capacity for development and cultivation of sustainability. The research proposes that deliberate interdependence between producers and markets creates the incentive for development that is self-determining, sustainable and derives economic benefits from agricultural activity. This research contributes towards understanding how to re-define commercialisation as an inherent characteristic of traditional agricultural practice and, within this, a meaningful description for stakeholders of the social impact of a deliberate and mutually determined reconstruction of livelihood reality through a farmer-market- researcher relationship. The research introduces the need for a new way of engaging over agriculture in communal spaces; how Discourse is defined and managed; for whom the results of evaluation and monitoring are aimed; and to whom the results of research belong. The research raises consciousness of the need for a space within which dialogue and support for sustaining social agriculture and the role that research institutions could play. The product of this research is a theory whose core variable defines successful commercial homestead agriculture as a dimension of systemic integrity between internal and external economic interactions. Systemic integrity has been defined as the process by which commercialisation of traditional agriculture has been demonstrated through tapping into the motivations that stimulate agricultural activity and nurturing social cohesion as the framework for legitimate development partnerships. The findings contribute to the discussion of how to unlock the technological and productive potential of rural communities within the images of supportiveness, solidarity, and communalism that produce food for the survival of humanity in a contemporary and dynamic world. ii DECLARATION I, Karen Fern Caister, declare that: The research reported in this thesis, except otherwise indicated, is my original research. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other university. This thesis does not contain other persons’ data, pictures, graphs or other information, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons. This thesis does not contain other persons’ writing, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other researchers. Where other written sources have been used, then: Their words have been re-written, but the general information attributed to them has been referenced; Where their exact words have been used, their writing has been placed inside quotation marks and referenced. This thesis does not contain text, graphics or tables copied and pasted from the Internet, unless specifically acknowledged, and the source being detailed in the thesis and in the Reference section. Signed: Karen F Caister______________________Date_______________________ Doctoral candidate “As the candidates supervisor I agree to the submission of this thesis.” Signed: Prof. JM Green_______________________Date_______________________ Supervisor (writing up) Signed: Prof. AT Modi_______________________Date_______________________ Supervisor (field work) iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was made possible by the farmers of the Ezemvelo Farmers Organisation (EFO). Hospitable and knowledgeable, they showed me how society and science complement each other well when they come together in submission to the greater common good. Graciously patient with my probing, they explored their memories, their perspectives and their current practice to draw conclusions on what is worthwhile about sustaining an Agri-Culture way of life. Woolworths needs to be acknowledged for its innovative response to corporate social responsibility and how this led to a willingness to engage with the EFO as if people and not just amadumbe mattered. SANPAD contributed to this research through the funding of the SANPAD Participatory Project focussing on the commercialisation of homestead amadumbe production. They also provided a year-long training programme for building research capacity in the social sciences known as the SANPAD Research Capacity Initiative. The contribution of this programme to me as a competent researcher and academic and to others, as I pass on what I have learned, will continue for many years. Closer to home, this thesis reflects the stimulation and influence of many voices. Colleagues, family and friends, who have chatted, discussed in depth, argued, questioned, encouraged, painstakingly elaborated and drawn from their wealth of experiences, skills and different world views to contribute to the communication of what we have together learned: If you read this thesis, you will hear your own voices. But in particular: Professor Modi, who led the SANPAD research team with an uncommon wisdom, who invited me into the field and convinced the EFO farmers that I would be faithful to the task they assigned; and then trusted me to work out how to do it. Professor Maryann Green, who is always ten steps ahead and whose mentoring skill connects what you know with what she knows and then challenges you to move beyond. This requires leadership, those qualities that arise from vision, confidence and a genuine commitment to growing people. Thank you for walking this path with me. iv Steve Worth, who created the space for me to learn and grow; who protected my reflecting space, shielded me from the full load of teaching and politicking of ordinary university life and who taught me about anchored learning and communicating. Mark Dent, who exercises daily the spiritual gifting of encouragement, and who introduced me to institutional learning and the literature on leadership. Mike Caister, my husband, who used ArcGIS Student Version 10, to patiently create customised maps of the study area from a collection of data bases. And, finally Charity Maphumulo, without whom I could not have done this research. Your translations and insight, our discussions of what things meant and the sharing of our own world views enriched and expanded my world. You made being in the field a delight, because you also loved being there. v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ACHIEVING ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM TRADITIONAL FARMING AS A WAY OF LIFE 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The research problem in context 2 1.2.1 A utilitarian research response? 4 1.2.2 Relevant to sustainable agriculture 5 1.2.3 Relevant to development for South Africa 6 1.2.4 Relevant to preferred livelihoods 8 1.2.5 Relevant to academic discourse 9 1.3 Identification and purpose of the study 10 1.3.1 An emergent research topic 11 1.3.2 An emergent research question 12 1.3.3 Study limits 15 1.3.4 Study design 16 1.4 Ethical considerations 18 1.5 Constraints 21 1.6 Value of the research 21 1.7 Outline of thesis 22 2. FARMERS’ EXPERIENCE AS REALITY – AN UNTAPPED POTENTIAL 2.1 Characteristics of the research area 27 2.2 Location of study area 27 2.3 Geographical characteristics 30 2.4 Governance structures 34 2.4.1 Structures 35 2.4.2 Service delivery 35 2.5 Land tenure and governance in Ingonyama Trust Lands 36 2.6 Commercial agricultural potential 39 2.7 Farming system 40 2.7.1 Homestead level system 41 2.7.2 Subsistence farming 43 vi 2.7.3 Beyond subsistence 44 2.7.4 Characteristics of farmers 46 2.8 Marketing system 56 2.8.1 SANPAD Participatory Project within the history of the EFO 56 2.8.2 Role of the EFO 58 2.8.3 Potential access to markets 59 2.8.4 Formal market relationship 59 2.9 Summary 61 3. METHODOLOGY AS THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 A biased and situated context 63 3.2 A context that demands methodological flexibility 64 3.2.1 Building concepts around an emergent agenda 65 3.2.2 Drawing concepts from emic issues 66 3.3 Responding to the context through Constructivist Grounded Theory Ethnography 66 3.4 Constructing a theory 68 3.5 Grounded Theory as analysis for constructing a theory 70 4. GROUNDED THEORY AS THE PROCESS OF THE RESEARCH 4.1 Handling data: techniques for coding, comparing and sorting 76 4.1.1 Acquiring data 76 4.1.2 Building concepts through constant comparison 80 4.2 Researcher learning as the underlying theme of theoretical sensitivity 86 4.3 Benchmarking the process of deeper learning 89 4.3.1 Learning process 1: Understanding the Grounded Theory as process 89 4.3.2 Learning process 2: Understanding the Context 90 4.4 Summary 92 5. SENSITISING CONCEPTS 5.1 Sensitising in order to ‘suspend’ preconceived ideas 94 5.2 Development 97 5.3 Sustainability 99 5.4 Cultural Integrity 102 vii 6. RESULTS OF INQUIRY: SEEING PATTERNS, SYNTHESISING CONCEPTS, SENSING RELATIONSHIPS 6.1 Envisioning a future; informed decision-making 110 6.1.1 Individual and collective wisdom 110 6.1.2 Incrementally integrating accessible opportunities based on values 122 6.1.3 Learning for livelihood sustainability 126 6.2 Being together in the world; tapping into social cohesion and stimulating agricultural activity 133 6.2.1 Tapping into factors which contribute to social cohesion (Table 6.6) 133 6.2.2 Tapping into the factors which stimulate activity for commercial agriculture 138 6.2.3 Systemic integrity: the core concept 140 7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 7.1 Building capacity for development 143 7.2 Leveraging for sustainability: tapping into social cohesion and stimulating agricultural activity 147 7.3 The future of agrarian change: alternatives for ‘what we are becoming’ 150 7.3.1 Argument for an alternative trajectory. 151 7.4 Critique of the Research Process 155 7.4.1 The use of sensitizing concepts in a GT 155 7.4.2 Critique on literature used to develop the categories. 158 8 A ‘POST FIELD WORK’ RETURN TO THE LITERATURE 8.1 History of agrarian change 162 8.1.1 The backdrop of globalisation 163 8.1.2 Intellectual roots for the paradigms of agrarian change 165 8.1.3 The roots of development 169 8.1.4 The Livelihoods approach in development 172 8.1.5 What happened to the Peasants? 173 8.1.6 The concept of community 176 8.2 Agrarian Priorities 177 8.2.1 The South African Context of ‘agrarian transformation’ 179 8.2.2 Current Agricultural Policy in South Africa 180 viii 8.3 Development and Research in Agriculture 182 8.3.1 Social capital as the currency of sustainability 183 8.3.2 Identity “place in the world” 185 8.3.3 The contributions of the livelihoods approach to research and development 188 9. RELEVANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Meanings and implications of the research 192 9.2 Relevance of the research to literature 192 9.3 Relevance of methodology 193 9.4 Recommendations and conclusion 195 9.4.1 Recommendations for decision makers in rural development 196 9.4.2 Recommendations for further research 198 9.5 Summary 199 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 The researcher’s role in the SANPAD Participatory Project as perceived by the EFO 14 Figure 2.1 Locality map of study area 28 Figure 2.2 Map of study area 29 Figure 2.3 Showing political demarcations (wards) in the study 30 Figure 2.4 Map showing land cover in study area 31 Figure 2.5 Example of commercial agriculture contrasted with CDR 32 Figure 2.6 Umbumbulu, traditional farming homestead 33 Figure 2.7 Flat-topped hill with deep incised valleys and wooded water courses 34 Figure 2.8 (L) fixed jojo tank; (R) blue water barrels (photo: Caister 2006) 36 Figure 2.9 Key restrictions of the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act (South African History online, 2011) 37 Figure 2.10 Mother and daughter working in winter vegetable garden, Ezigeni (photo: Caister, 2 August 2007) 42 Figure 2.11 Ploughing with oxen or donkey remains a gendered role (photo: Caister, 28 November 2006) 42 ix